@amir_asr just like some of the measurements don't matter the way you think they do. I used to think the great measuring equipment was best until I heard the sound of a tube system.
Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews
I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
1. Speaker pricing.
One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.
2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
- ...
- 1166 posts total
Careful. Every one of their measurement videos I have watched make fundamental mistakes in conclusions they draw. I addressed one of them about network switches in this thread. You need to be careful to not leap from some measurable effect, to the output of your audio device changing. I post this video there to demonstrate how what they say doesn't apply to output of your audio system:
I don't know them personally. But do know that they impress lay audiophiles by the look of their measurement gear while not understanding at all what they are measuring. Same folks who fight me tooth and nail on measurements, all of a sudden become a fan of their measurements! Their listening tests do NOT follow proper protocols. Just running a test blind doesn't mean you are generating good data. That is but one component of proper testing. Finally, testing audio gear is not "doing science." It is just measurements. Understanding the measurement data as far as audibility invokes science but again, is not doing science. Same with properly doing audio listening tests. Your doctor is not doing science either by following it to treat you. |
Quick look at traditional press reviews on Topping easily invalidates your claim. Check out KR's review of Topping DM-7 multichannel DAC in Stereophile magazine. "On first hearing with the DM7, I was almost certain my streamer had swerved and served up something from a different album when, after a half-dozen instrumental tracks, Ms. Perbost simply appeared in my room just left of center. " [...] "I also tried the DM7 with older favorites, and it didn't disappoint. It fully revealed the spacious, warm acoustic and the fully present trio on The Elder (Polarity, Hoff Ensemble, rip from 2L 2L-145-SACD). Particularly notable here, and also on Justice, is the delineation and weight of the bass and drums. Willie Nelson's Night and Day, which is recorded with the band fully surrounding the listener, shows that the DM7 can create a convincing immersive experience. I hear instruments, discretely and realistically rendered, all around me, including in the wide spaces between the front and rear speakers in my 5.3 system." "I came back to René Jacobs's rethinking of Der Freischütz (Harmonia Mundi HMM90270001, 2 CDs), which so impressed me when I reviewed the KEF Blade Metas. Heard now with the resident Revels and the Topping DM7 (in place of the exaSound s88), it was no less impressive. The clear and varied voices are well-defined within a soundstage that's wide and deep, and the effects are convincing. In the Wolf's Glen scene, the space and chorus expand in size, including height, and the orchestra is convincingly spooky and dramatic. From just two channels, the DM7 conveys the full sense of the theatrical events with a perfect integration of pit and stage." JA had this to say about its objective performance: "The Topping DM7's measured performance is superb, even without taking its affordable price into account.—John Atkinson" Here is Absolute Sound Review by Steve Stone of Topping D90SE, directly contradicting your claim: "Sound This is the section where I’m sure a number of readers are hoping that I discover that the D90SE, despite its wonderous specifications, sounds just OK. Sorry, but that was not the case. What I heard was reference-level digital reproduction without any sonic bromides. If the absence of coloration, individualistic character, or “house sound” was the goal, the D90SE has clearly achieved it. During my listening time with the D90SE I was never able to identify anything I would characterize as deviations from tonal neutrality. To my ears, the D90SE is very much in the “straight no chaser” school of DACs, like Benchmark or Bryston. If you need a more euphonic sonic output, the D90SE will not help you get to that place. Since I have quite a number of recordings that I made of live performances of classical orchestras, chamber groups, Bluegrass ensembles, and solo recitals, I have a complete set of listening tools that I know well. Also, I know what the recording chain was, and what the various sonic “tells” are on different recordings. Throughout my listening sessions using my own material, I was continually encouraged to hear that the D90SE neither added nor subtracted from the spatial, textural, or rhythmic character of the performances. One of the unique recordings I have is one that I made at the Rockygrass Academy several years ago of Chris Thile playing and commenting on my then recently acquired 1930 Gibson F-5 mandolin. The D90SE did a superlative job of retaining all the harmonic characteristics of both Chris’ voice and my mandolin. [Steven is a noted expert on guitars and mandolins, and is a long-time contributor to Vintage Guitar magazine. —RH] As usual when I listen, I’m primarily listening for faults rather than for whether a particular recording sounds more real on one piece of gear than another. But one performance arena where the D90SE ranks as “jaw-dropping” is its silence. In a properly configured system with no additive noise such as low-level hums or buzzes, listening through the D90SE will deliver the “blackest blacks” (if you wish to define signal-to-noise in terms of colors) you will hear from any DAC. In a system where I can place my ear within an inch of my loudspeaker’s drivers, I heard nothing, not even a hiss; when I switched from the D90SE as an input source to a shorted input source, there was absolutely no difference in base noise levels. On many commercial recordings the difference between the absolute silence of the D90SE and the base-level “silence” of the recording was noticeable, always in favor of the D90SE. If your sonic goal is to cobble together the quietest, most noise-free system possible, the D90SE ranks as a first-call player." He goes to do an AB test against another DAC and reports: "After multiple listening sessions I was forced to conclude that I could not tell any sonic difference between the sound of the Topping D90SE and the Gustard X-16. Both offer a clear view of the musical event without any house-sound or euphonic colorations. Both produced the same imaging characteristics in terms of depth, width, image focus, and dynamic acuity. Hard as I tried, I could not discern any sonic differences I could regularly identify." And this in conclusion: "I will admit that when considering the Topping D90SE it’s hard not to scream: “ENDGAME DAC!” And begin jumping around a la Tom Cruise in Risky Business. But since I am, first and foremost a fully grown old gent, I won’t give in to this vile temptation. But I will go on the record that if a neutral, high-resolution, modern, well-configured DAC that sounds as true to source material as any I’ve ever heard is something you are seeking, the D90SE could easily qualify as your new reference DAC." Stereophile and Absolute Sound are the top two magazines when it comes to high--end audio. Both massively contradict your claim. Both rave about qualities you claim Topping doesn't have. I will quote one more from Secrets of High Fidelity. "A nice selection of music to listen to via headphones and draw by. Routing the D90SE’s analog out to my STAX headphone amp and earspeakers, I was treated to a stone quiet background from which John Williams, Yo-Yo Ma, and the New York Philharmonic worked. The details in Yo-Yo Ma’s playing throughout “The Concerto for Cello and Orchestra” were frankly astonishing. There was no hint of etch or harshness in the sound of any of the strings, horns, or background percussion. The Topping provided everything my electrostatic headphones and amp needed for them to do their effortless magic with this music. Ma’s and the Philharmonic’s rendition of “the theme from Schindler’s List” simply gave me chills. Sublime stuff this. I need to thank fellow reviewer Gene Hopstetter for turning me on to this album. A beautiful recording of a piano sensitively played. Again the Topping D90SE did nothing to enhance, detract, or editorialize the glorious spacious piano notes that came forth from this performance. The dynamics from the piano seemed completely natural and unencumbered. “Etude n.6” was just a powerhouse tour de force that sounded huge, whether I used the D90SE with my STAX headphones or in my main system with speakers. Transparent in the extreme." He concludes thusly: "I’m finding it very difficult to find fault with the Topping D90SE DAC. It is well made, has superb measured performance, sounds as transparent and devoid of coloration as any other DAC that I have come across, and it won’t cost you an arm and a leg." [...] "The Topping D90SE is a DAC for listeners who want nothing to get in between them and their music. It reveals all without adding anything that shouldn’t be there. It is very much the ultimate textbook DAC that almost anyone can afford. Highly Recommended." |
@amir_asr you have uncanny "ability" to misconstrue the arguments presented to you throughout this lengthy thread. It is either due to lack of comprehension or a need of "proving" your ideas to be true. Most likely the latter, since you project yourself as the only one in the know and everybody who disagrees does not have a clue. How about to agree that we disagree. Those who follow their senses to enjoy reproduction of music by audio equipment are not harming anybody, but you do disservice to people who limit themselves in pursue of such an enjoyment following your ideas of "only measurements matter". |
I am doing that? How many times have I talked about proper listening tests? I have posted videos how to do that properly. I have posted my own listening tests. I have repeatedly explained how we rely on more than measurements to including engineering knowledge and science to determine fidelity. Yet you go and repeat that made up talking point that "only measurements matter?" If you can't even phrase what is different about us by making things up like this, why do you think we can "agree to disagree?" The first step in that is understanding the other person's position. I know you all's position. I have lived it for almost a decade in the last forum I co-founded. You all need to make a modicum of effort to correctly state what we are about. So once more: listening is great. I do it in almost every other review. Until you learn how to do this right, you are going to arrive at wrong conclusions about audio. Measuring is an alternative to listening that can bring significant insight into design and execution of an audio device. When science and engineering is applied to it, it provides a powerful conclusion as to validity of company claims to fidelity. As to "harming anything," you all created this thread and started to post misinformation about ASR and I. What do you call this if it is not harming? |
- 1166 posts total